Thursday, April 20

Matisse recommends carrying on with research. She suggests research on smart contracts, specifically around economics and the global market, such as crossing jurisdictions, observing the reality of how things really work, and reshaping how the approach should work.

Colin had pointed out that Kantara is a liaison organization to ISO SC27 WG5 on blockchain and electronic DLTs, and "we can become involved and contribute if we wish to". (See the resolutions Colin passed along from their first meeting in Sydney in April.) From observing that work through the Standards Council of Canada, John thinks ISO's work will move perhaps more slowly than Kantara's ability to comment. We could reasonably check back in 18 months. Kantara's mechanism for liaison is through a specific liaison subcommittee, which is able to see any non-public documents by request every six months.

With respect to timeline, is everything way too early? Is it a matter of early or are there some evergreen truths?

Do we want to make recommendations about what (or what transactions) should be put on blockchains and with what protections? Even if there is already conventional wisdom about not putting personal data on a public blockchain, maybe that needs to be formalized! Apparently not everyone knows that. As Andrew says: "Common sense is not common."

Can we think of ourselves as risk assessors about blockchain? Or if not "blockchain" generally, the imperatives we have identified?

Candidate recommendations:

Spin up a (just one?) WG to develop good practice on use and handling of identity data in an empowering and privacy-sensitive fashion on blockchains and smart contracts

Influencing those who are building blockchain systems, including those who are building blockchain-based identity systems and those who are building Bitcoin-, Ethereum-, and Hyperledger-based applications